Author
Topic: A question for Google -- why are you so desperate to have me switch to Chrome? (Read 9359 times)

Although I have expressed in the past my skepticism about Google, I have a serious and honest question that occurred to me:

Google is spending millions (billions?) of dollars advertising and promoting its "Chrome" browser.

Why?

Actually let me simplify this question -- I don't want to get into a debate about true motives and conspiracies, so let me rephrase the question:

Why does GOOGLE say it is spending such huge sums to advertise and promote and try to get people to switch to their Chrome browser?

I honestly am curious about the answer to this question. They must be telling someone somewhere why they are spending such huge amounts of money trying to get people to switch to Chrome -- what are they saying the reasons are?

And let's not make this google-hate thread, there are plenty of other threads on the forum about things that google does that many of us are unhappy about, and we can discuss our concerns there.

I'm really just interested here on getting an answer to a very narrowly focused question, without spin or conspiracy theory. I want to know their official position on why they are so aggressively pursuing browser market share.

I think they're hoping to pincer the OS market with the mobile market by having a webstore that is not just an app store, an extension database but most importantly a bookmark database for site services and in that way, they may not be able to wall garden the social crowd of Facebook users, but they can wall garden the rest of the internet especially static sites. (Although said static sites still need to be modern sites that host things such as extensions or login forms and stuff like that. Think a database where newbies who don't know how to greasemonkey their favorite sites can get a slick interface for their favorite site. One that in many ways integrates the browser and sites even more. Or for commercial sites, white label sites using the Chrome Webstore lay-out to bookmark a site under the guise of an installed app instead.)

Because of money and insight in how people use their computers? In it turns out that all you really really need is a browser Google wants to deliver so they can collect. They are preparing for the future, if that is next month, next year - from this or that device Google of course wants to be there. Why open the door for another Facebook monster? Make people use the browser/mini-OS -> make money with, for and from the people

Can also ask so why the hell is there something called Google TV??? - same answer. In Googles case they probably don't even think money or taxes, just deep thoughts about where future markets will be. Figure that out and current costs are of no importance. Control or just being first = more money than you can imagine.

Because of money and insight in how people use their computers? In it turns out that all you really really need is a browser Google wants to deliver so they can collect. They are preparing for the future, if that is next month, next year - from this or that device Google of course wants to be there. Why open the door for another Facebook monster? Make people use the browser/mini-OS -> make money with, for and from the people

Can also ask so why the hell is there something called Google TV??? - same answer. In Googles case they probably don't even think money or taxes, just deep thoughts about where future markets will be. Figure that out and current costs are of no importance. Control or just being first = more money than you can imagine.

To be fair, this is also because of market demands unlike Facebook where it was more of a reverse process.

Lots of people now want things on the web but also things on their PC. It's just convenient and it also make things easier to sync across computers even if you don't know anything about networking and servers or can't afford a fast connection.

I'm not defending Google's habits but the Chrome of today has bridged a demand that Firefox and other browsers weren't providing. The web app is also a key to stopping businesses from shoving toolbars in order to advertise their products as it's just a link to another site.

If you can answer 'why is google spending so much on something like street view?' then you can answer everything else they do.

It's no longer the case. Not because Google is no longer trying to spy on people's lives but at this stage, things like street view are old news and doesn't align with Chrome at all.

Google kind of botched it with Chrome for gathering data. Doc syncs are not really possible or crude. Gmail is just another e-mail inbox. People have problems with bookmark syncs.

Chrome is really more of a frontend for Google's netbook. Things like data mining are alot more efficient elsewhere as most Chrome users really prefer third-party extensions because Google's own services aren't really that good at bringing the cloud os to fruition.

I think you have to look at a slightly different and 'earlier' angle (ie the benefits of spying), web is almost mature enough to be able to question the value of data mining. At best it means relevant ads, what else is gained by google even if it is actively spying?

EDIT

More to the point of this thread, I would like to add the following:Google tablet, netbook or whatever should and will be measured by its own sales not by its OS (Chrome and apps) Google is after a hardware market, of course it is running its own nice little thing, but hardware sales will judge its success

I think you have to look at a slightly different and 'earlier' angle (ie the benefits of spying), web is almost mature enough to be able to question the value of data mining. At best it means relevant ads, what else is gained by google even if it is actively spying?

Hmm...I'm not sure I follow. I think we're implying the same thing except for the conclusion. Google still has to move on away from ads and it needs to find a revenue model for that and in it's earlier incarnation the reason Google even has the ad market is because they sort of improve the way ads are presented anyway so it's not like spying doesn't have any value outside of ads.

A clear example of how spying can help is to look at Facebook logins. There's no relevant ads there inherently but because programs can auto-import contacts and other functionalities, you can "train" your customers to willingly share their tastes and information as opposed to just data mining it which is all in all a more exposed and less controversial way of flat out building a list for ads as well as grabbing the interests of businesses who purely see it as a way to advertise their services.

Quote

More to the point of this thread, I would like to add the following:Google tablet, netbook or whatever should and will be measured by its own sales not by its OS (Chrome and apps) Google is after a hardware market, of course it is running its own nice little thing, but hardware sales will judge its success

Hardware is pretty important for Google but they can't out-marketshare the users that way. Even if they surpass Apple, there's a good chance someone will create a jailbreak open source alternative that, though it might not impact sales, would keep Google from acquiring a social consumer/web user monopoly-like wall garden similar to Facebook.

Again Chrome for desktop is a good example. It bridges the users that are purely IE users if the netbook succeeds as a hardware but it has already eaten up a once untouchable alternative in Firefox at a faster rate than Firefox could eat up IE.

Then again going back to ads and other things: Google may not have figured out Facebook but if it can co-exist as a parasite with Facebook but for more browser-centric needs, it can convince businesses to put something on their webapp store that's like a Chrome-exclusive site beautifier greasemonkey script that makes it harder to move away from Google unless people suddenly have an interest in Safari/Opera/Firefox as in browsers. (Google may have a lot of complaints regarding it's less flexible extension +buttons only system but if it's adopted by ignorant consumers, it's ui is the closest to IE6 "not a browser" just a window to the internet interface)

Even better for Google, in theory, all these downstream to hardware anyway. The more Chrome becomes integral to the perception of a cloud OS, the harder it is for any alternative to copy the barebones interface of a netbook OS as users will still be most likely looking for that "window to the internet but with other nifty stuff that the blue one didn't" i.e. not much different for how hardware vendors bundle OSX and Windows pre-installed on people's PCs.

It also serves as a back-up. Let's say Google's hardware doesn't sell and then what? It's a dead-end. However as long as Chrome exists, it's not a failed project. Every "next" Chrome netbook after that will always have users trying it out just to witness how Chrome integrates with the hardware and vis-a-vis that goal is also a vision that incentivizes Google to further eat away at browser marketshare therefore fail nor success Chrome (even without the data gathering say Chromium builds) is always a fallback application that would help Google grow and seep further into the nooks and crannies of web users' brains that it can always be an existing product Google will keep improving on. (unless browsers get totally replaced by something totally un-browser like)

Probably for the same reasons that Microsoft bought a little browser then turned around and made it free. Applications are moving to the web, and they want to be there. That's where the money is.

Have to agree with Renegade and Paul Keith on this. The answer lies [somewhat] in 1995 and the lengths Microsoft went to make it so easy to use IE over any other browser. That crazy time with Navigator really set the open source movement on a path that has slowly evolved into Chrome. Apple doesn't give a frick what you think about Safari; they're in control like it or not. Microsoft is racing to install cloud services throughout its software lineup. But right now (beyond Opera), you have three choices: (1) buy into a closed proprietary system like Apple, (2) go with Microsoft, who refuses to implement key open source standards in its browser, or (3) go with Chrome, which is trying to shed as much proprietary baggage as possible for one simple reason: so you can "take your data with you" -- whether that be mobile/tablet, desktop, netbook, and even gaming within the browser.

One example is WebGL (Web-based Graphics Language). What it does is use JavaScript to implement the use of 3D graphics within the browser. Currently this can only be done in Chrome, which makes version 9 a significant step in browser technology. Firefox and Safari are both expected to support WebGL, although Microsoft has not said that they will implement it in IE. Google's Chrome Experiments page contains some cool examples of what they're trying to do. (You will need to turn off adblock and other filters.)

Finally, Google has learned user behaviors the hard way: once settled in and comfortable with an application, most users are loathe to switch. If you're accustomed to Google Apps and Services, you'll likely lobby your company to adopt the same for convenience. Microsoft wrote the book; Google is just following the script.

Finally, Google has learned user behaviors the hard way: once settled in and comfortable with an application, most users are loathe to switch. If you're accustomed to Google Apps and Services, you'll likely lobby your company to adopt the same for convenience. Microsoft wrote the book; Google is just following the script.

But right now (beyond Opera), you have three choices: (1) buy into a closed proprietary system like Apple, (2) go with Microsoft, who refuses to implement key open source standards in its browser, or (3) go with Chrome, which is trying to shed as much proprietary baggage as possible for one simple reason: so you can "take your data with you" -- whether that be mobile/tablet, desktop, netbook, and even gaming within the browser.

So which of these three choices includes Mozilla and its various open source offspring? Firefox currently has more than twice the market share of Chrome, and is the only officially supported non-IE browser for many online transaction sites like banks. Of course Opera (my primary browser, btw) is also a closed proprietary system.

But right now (beyond Opera), you have three choices: (1) buy into a closed proprietary system like Apple, (2) go with Microsoft, who refuses to implement key open source standards in its browser, or (3) go with Chrome, which is trying to shed as much proprietary baggage as possible for one simple reason: so you can "take your data with you" -- whether that be mobile/tablet, desktop, netbook, and even gaming within the browser.

So which of these three choices includes Mozilla and its various open source offspring? Firefox currently has more than twice the market share of Chrome, and is the only officially supported non-IE browser for many online transaction sites like banks. Of course Opera (my primary browser, btw) is also a closed proprietary system.

An alternative answer would be #3. One thing Chrome can deviate from the script if things turn for the bad is potentially combine Chromium with Firefox. It's not like it can't be attempted. For example Flock did it.

Mozilla is a great test bed for Chrome. Part of why Chrome's marketshare got so big so fast is because they copied many of the elements that make Mozilla successful but removed many of the criticism of Firefox's perception (like being a memory hog)

Not only that, Mozilla makes a great pincer for eating up IE's marketshare. It's not only a lazy incubator for what Chrome developers can focus on (all they really need to do is monitor most of the news coming from Firefox instead of IE or Opera) - the bigger Firefox's marketshare is, the weaker IE becomes and the easier it is for Chrome to eat up the OS market since Firefox doesn't really have an OS bundled with it outside of Linux (and many casual Linux users are starting to prefer Chrome's lightweightedness over FF) but Chrome's primary competitor on the mobile market are Opera Mini and whatever default browsers are on those gadgets. Things Firefox really are not able to take advantage of much unless they become even more lightweight than Opera Mini.

To answer the original question, I believe Google is pushing Chrome, because they want to minimize risks. Risks -> fear -> discomfort. They are big enough to minimize the risks and they believe that it is the best use of their resources.

Consider the default search provider in FF. I think it is still google at this moment, but what if FF changes that in the future? What if a better search service appears, FF recognizes that and switches the default search provider? Lots of $ will be lost. Open source may be open, but there is still a small group of people in control. Google cannot directly control FF.

So, Google is not trying to take over the world, they are just trying to control the money pipeline leading to them. Having its own browser is logical.

Lots of speculation in this thread.. I tend to think along the same lines as vlastimil, though i wouldn't be surprised if google doesn't have an offensive use planned for Chrome as well as a defensive use.

But still.. I'd really like to know what Google themselves say there reasons are for spending so much money pushing Chrome.

What if FF changes that in the future? What if a better search service appears, FF recognizes that and switches the default search provider? Lots of $ will be lost. Open source may be open, but there is still a small group of people in control. Google cannot directly control FF.

The thing is... the better search provider cannot be as rich as the richer ads/search/docs/e-mail provider.

Another thing is...Google understands why they overtook Yahoo and all the other web apps are there to leverage any loss from a marketshare perspective. I'm not saying Google's perfect (like how they miss out on Buzz or how Wave and Notebook was put on hiatus) but the FF situation even way back benefitted Mozilla more than it benefitted Google pre-Chrome.

1) Let's not forget that Google's primary cashcow are ads. Let's not forget that FF's primary user are Adblock users.

2) Google's marketshare didn't increase from being the default provider. Just see any browser that tried to make a different default browser: people end up returning to Google.

When Chrome was released most of the blogosphere were talking about how Google screwed Mozilla and not the other way around because there really was no danger for Mozilla to drop Google anytime.

Quote

So, Google is not trying to take over the world, they are just trying to control the money pipeline leading to them. Having its own browser is logical.

If you control the world, you control the pipeline. Google wants to take over the world of search. Mission mostly accomplished. Now Google wants to take over the world of cloud applications.

Having it's own browser was illogical in terms of competing as a browser. It's been mentioned often times, Chrome does not have a bigger marketshare of users than Firefox. Chrome winning the browser marketshare is not only less profitable, they have a less than optimized browser that barely fits an alternative need on it's own.

On the other hand, Chrome "linked" to Google's OS allows Google to beta run most of the major problems that can be related to a WebOS. Allows Google to train it's customer to see the most often seen interface of their WebOS.

From the get go Chrome had no interest in competing with the browser battles. Their aim was much more grandiloquent. Aim at the heart of Windows marketshare by attacking it's weakest (and at the same time most exclusive points) - Office and IE marketshare.

Take those away and you can introduce an operating system that can leapfrog through most of the Linux and OS alternatives. Then once you gain a share of the operating system users, eat away at the remaining pieces of the prime competitor known as IE and Office. Once that taken care of, it doesn't matter if users prefer Firefox over Chrome. It will be installed in their WebOS which coincidentally will be syncing with Android data and you could potentially have the first dominant desktop-mobile-server-cloud-TV dominant service in the entire history of the internet which coincidentally combined with their improving offering of Maps/Images/Street Views/etc. services allows them to be the premier directory of everything and anything to the point that only services like Facebook would have their own marketshare as users are uniquely loyal to those services no matter how confusing, poor, private breach those services are. Every other service post-that type of monopoly and they could just slap a super search engine storage to their existing infrastructure and compete with any threat be it the likes of it coming from mobile/cloud/desktop/etc. (Again not saying their execution of their plan is perfect but just trying to steer any notion away from the idea that Chrome is a defensive move "in case" a browser switches to another search engine. That could almost count as historical revisioning even though history hasn't happened yet. Think Big, Not Small. The Google Way. Happened with Gmail. Happened with Docs and Spreadsheets. Happened with Wave. Happened with Ads. The smallest well known things Google have done - they often abandoned or mostly weren't updating post-release anyway. Chrome is the exact opposite of that and you can see it not only from the money being shelled in but for how early the first full version of Chrome came out of beta. None of those are actions of a company with an intent to just create a browser as a "back-up" utility.

I'm really just interested here on getting an answer to a very narrowly focused question, without spin or conspiracy theory. I want to know their official position on why they are so aggressively pursuing browser market share.

1. Clicking data from chrome will help them gather resources for page rank and search results.2. Google will target ads better by spying on their users. 3. People may use bing to search but searching patterns can be traced from browser and with your own browser things become too easy.4. No need for compete.com, quantserve etc, you have browser share and that is much trusted variable than these traffic analysis solutions.

By locking their services with browser it's easy for them to completely control merchant as well as consumer side. Okay so you may not get adware software like mozzilla firefox but chrome atleast monitors you in different way. (Mozzilla uses their own affiliate code if we use search box near the address bar). Chrome is not being adware like that so they're finding alternative ways to make money from their consumer share.

Dunno how official it is, but this page ha sat least an understandable opinion,

Quote

It's unclear whether Google "will do well to expand its business", but Chrome seems to be a part of a strategic initiative to make Google more visible on the desktop, a mix between Google Toolbar, Google Desktop and Gears that turned into a browser and that needs a critical mass to be taken seriously.